Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:16:11.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DO OPEN-POLLINATED MAIZE VARIETIES PERFORM BETTER THAN HYBRIDS IN AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

ALAIN NDOLI ,
FRÉDÉRIC BAUDRON ,
TESFAYE SHIFERAW SIDA ,
ANTONIUS G. T. SCHUT ,
J. VAN HEERWAARDEN  and
KEN E. GILLER
ALAIN NDOLI*
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands CIMMYT- Southern Africa Regional Office, PO Box MP163, Mt Pleasant, 25 km Peg Mazowe Road, Harare, Zimbabwe
FRÉDÉRIC BAUDRON
Affiliation:
CIMMYT- Southern Africa Regional Office, PO Box MP163, Mt Pleasant, 25 km Peg Mazowe Road, Harare, Zimbabwe
TESFAYE SHIFERAW SIDA
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands CIMMYT- Southern Africa Regional Office, PO Box MP163, Mt Pleasant, 25 km Peg Mazowe Road, Harare, Zimbabwe
ANTONIUS G. T. SCHUT
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. VAN HEERWAARDEN
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
KEN E. GILLER
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
§Corresponding author. Email: ndolialain@gmail.com or alain.ndoli@iucn.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A large body of evidence demonstrates the agronomic superiority of maize hybrids over open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) in intensive monoculture. However, comparisons of the performance of hybrids and OPVs in agroforestry systems are scarce. In this study, the performance of four maize hybrids and four OPVs is compared in sole crop and under mature trees. Experiments were conducted on-farm during four seasons in Bugesera, Rwanda and two seasons in Meki, Ethiopia. Two tree species were selected in Bugesera (Grevillea robusta and Senna spectabilis) and one in Meki (Acacia tortilis), and three farms were selected for each tree species, each including two plots with almost identical trees in their centre and two plots without tree. In Bugusera, grain yield was higher for hybrids (2 Mg ha−1) than for OPVs (1.5 Mg ha−1), and the presence of trees reduced the harvest index more in OPVs than in hybrids. In this region, the estimated reduction in grain yield due to the presence of trees was 0.9 and 1.1 Mg ha−1 in hybrids and OPVs, respectively, while estimated reduction in biomass was 1.5 and 1.7 Mg ha−1, respectively. In Meki, the grain yield of OPVs (2.08 Mg ha−1) and hybrids (2.04 Mg ha−1) did not differ and the presence of trees reduced their grain yields in the same manner. Our results showed that hybrids yielded more than OPVs under G. robusta and S. spectabilis in Bugesera but performed equally well under A. tortilis in Meki. We conclude that agroforestry farmers could benefit from growing hybrids in the equatorial savannahs of Rwanda, but that the choice between hybrid and OPV in equatorial savannahs of Ethiopia can simply be based on other factors such as seed costs and availability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 649 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abate, T., Shiferaw, B., Menkir, A., Wegary, D., Kebede, Y., Tesfaye, K., Kassie, M., Bogale, G., Tadesse, B. and Keno, T. (2015). Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia. Food Security 7:965–981.Google Scholar
Alemu, D., Mwangi, W., Nigussie, M. and Spielman, D. J. (2008). The maize seed system in Ethiopia: Challenges and opportunities in drought prone areas. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3:305–314.Google Scholar
Anley, W., Zeleke, H. and Dessalegn, Y. (2013). Genotype x environment interaction of maize (Zea mays L.) across north western Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 5:171–181.Google Scholar
Beshir, B. (2011). Open Pollinated Maize Seed Systems Linkages through Farmer Research Group in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EIAR.Google Scholar
CIMMYT (1997). Book of Abstracts. The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops; An International Symposium. Mexico, D.F., Mexico: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Desclaux, D., Huang, H.-Y., Bernazeau, B. and Lavene, P. (2016). Agroforestry: New challenge for field crop breeding. In 3rd European Agroforestry Conference INRA – Montpellier, France, 23–25 May 2016, 103.Google Scholar
Efa, N., Gorman, M. and Phelan, J. (2005). Implications of an extension package approach for farmers’ indigenous knowledge: The maize extension package in south-western Ethiopia. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 12:65–78.Google Scholar
Getachew, H. and Tesfaye, K. (2015). Analysis of risks in crop production due to climate change in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research 10:1913–1922.Google Scholar
Kamara, A., Menkir, A., Badu-Apraku, B. and Ibikunle, O. (2003). Reproductive and stay-green trait responses of maize hybrids, improved open-pollinated varieties and farmers's local varieties to terminal drought stress. Maydica 48:29–38.Google Scholar
Kidane, H., Yirga, H., Teklay, Y., Teklay, Z. and Juhar, J. (2016). Pre-extension popularization of improved maize varieties: In Raya-Azebo Woreda South of Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 7:1–11.Google Scholar
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B. and Rubel, F. (2006). World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15:259–263.Google Scholar
Macharia, C., Njeru, C., Ombakho, G. and Shiluli, M. (2010). Comparative performance of advanced generations of maize hybrids with a local maize variety: Agronomic and financial implications for smallholder farmers. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 7:801–809.Google Scholar
Maddonni, G. and Otegui, M. (1996). Leaf area, light interception, and crop development in maize. Field Crops Research 48:81–87.Google Scholar
NISR (2014). Statistical Yearbook. Kigali, Rwanda: National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR).Google Scholar
Ong, C. K. and Leakey, R. R. B. (1999). Why tree-crop interactions in agroforestry appear at odds with tree-grass interactions in tropical savannahs. Agroforestry Systems 45:109–129.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Regional State of Oromia (2003). Lume Woreda Based Development Programme Oromia Economic Study Project Office. Mojo, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Russel, W. (1984). Agronomic performance of maize cultivars representing different eras of breeding. Maydica 29:75–390.Google Scholar
Smale, M. and Jayne, T. (2003). Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: "Seeds" of Success in Retrospect. Washington, DC: Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Smale, M. and Mason, N. (2014). Hybrid seed and the economic well-being of smallholder maize farmers in Zambia. Journal of Development Studies 50:680–695.Google Scholar
Tiwari, T. P., Brook, R. M. and Sinclair, F. L. (2004). Implications of hill farmers' agronomic practices in Nepal for crop improvement in maize. Experimental Agriculture 40:397–417.Google Scholar
Tiwari, T. P., Brook, R. M., Wagstaff, P. and Sinclair, F. L. (2012). Effects of light environment on maize in hillside agroforestry systems of Nepal. Food Security 4:103–114.Google Scholar
Tiwari, T., Virk, D. and Sinclair, F. L. (2009). Rapid gains in yield and adoption of new maize varieties for complex hillside environments through farmer participation: I. Improving options through participatory varietal selection (PVS). Field Crops Research 111:137–143.Google Scholar
van Heerwaarden, J., Hellin, J., Visser, R. and Van Eeuwijk, F. (2009). Estimating maize genetic erosion in modernized smallholder agriculture. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 119:875–888.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ndoli et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Ndoli et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35.6 KB